What then, does this have to say about Facts. We propose that there is at least a Soft Branching Hypothesis: the way in which we structure our communication is aligned with the sense we have about our own personal control over the content of the statement(s) being offered. When we are “out of control” we are likely to be left branching. There might be an even more forceful (and controversial) hypothesis. The Strong Branching Hypothesis would suggest that the nature of branching has a direct impact on the way in which we construct our reality – especially the way in which we identify and act upon our assumptions about what is called “locus of control.”
When assuming we have control over the Facts we receive and the Facts we convey to other people (control in this instance being defined as a clear understanding of the nature and source of Facts), then we are likely to be assertive and direct—we are likely to make extensive use of right-branching structures. Writing like Ernest Hemingway, we are likely to express ourselves in simple, declarative statements. We “know” what is true and what is false. We live in an objectivist universe. There is no constructivist hesitation. We are clear and in charge of our faculties and the Facts.
By contrast, what if we are living in a world where we have very little control over the Facts or actions to be taken based on the Facts (whatever their source)? This uncertainty leads us to and is reinforced by left-branching statements. We are hesitant about what is true and what is false. We qualify everything and “back into” our recommendations, rather than offering them “up front.” Our writing is speculative. We are less in the Hemingway camp, and more in the camp of those 21st Century authors who can’t seem to write an intelligible sentence! We are “out of control” and are without clear bearings or direction. The world of volatile and vulnerable constructivism is alive and well (or not so well).
We will be looking at two fundamental ways in which this syntactic issue is at play when applying this linguistic notion about branching to the nature and lifespan of Facts. First, there is an important way in which the left-branching and the accompanying passive voice is indicative of an absence of certainty in the domain of Facts. Those who are working in this domain as “experts” are often “kidding themselves” if they believe there is clarity and certainty regarding Facts.
Experts often manifest an abundance of “hubris” regarding their command of the “Facts” precisely because at a deep level they don’t really believe what they are saying. We do our own colluding with these hubris-inflicted experts—for we desperately long for objective truth when our analysis of Facts is saturated with anxiety. Under these conditions we find that the domain of Facts is embedded in constructivism. Facts are elusive—and short-lived—leading to misunderstanding and misdirection in the specific modifiers (such as money and confusion) being attached to this domain.
There is a second, perhaps more profound, implication associated with this syntactic analysis. Left and right branching tends to shift the way in which we view causality. Causal analysis is a critical issue in the domain of Facts. The direction of causality is clear when the subject comes prior to the modifiers. We can say: “the boy hits the ball” or we can say: “the boy hits the ball out of the park”. In either case, it is the boy who is the primary cause. Nothing changes with the addition of more modifiers. When the subject follows the modifiers then causality can be confusing. We say: “The ball was hit by the boy”. This is the same thing as “the boy hit the ball.” However, we are a bit more in doubt, for the ball seems to be particularly important. In some way, did the ball choose the boy who is to do the hitting? Of course not.
Download Article 1K Club
